DETAILED ACTION
The office action is responsive to a preliminary amendment filed on 11/30/22 and is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-7 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119
(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2020-096792, filed on 6/3/20.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine
grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11347918. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant claims are found in the parent application as noted above.
With respect to claim 1, U.S. Patent 11,347,918 teaches A verification processing device (Col. 1 lines 15-16 “The present invention relates to a validation processing device, a validation processing method, and a program.”
a checking unit that performs model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements (Col. 2 lines 12-18 “According to a first aspect of the present invention, a validation processing device includes: a processing unit that performs model checking on a model to be checked; and a selection unit that selects, on the basis of a result of the model checking, one element among elements that have undergone a state change in a process leading to an unsafe event.”
a selection unit that selects one or more of a plurality of elements included in a counterexample output as a result of the model checking (Col. 7 line 51 – Col. 8 lines 1-2 “As described above, the validation processing device 1 according to the first embodiment includes: the processing unit 100 that performs model checking on the model to be checked MOD; and the selection unit 101 that selects, on the basis of a result of the model checking, one element among elements that have undergone state change in a process leading to the unsafe event. Then, the processing unit 100 performs model re-checking on the model to be checked (reconstructed model) excluding one element selected by the selection unit 101.
In such a manner, it is possible to extract only the troubles that directly cause the unsafe event from the plurality of elements (troubles) shown in the model checking (refer to step S09 in FIG. 4). Therefore, the validator of the model to be checked MOD only needs to perform counterexample interpretation for the counterexample including only the critical elements contributing to the occurrence of the unsafe event. As a result, it is possible to reduce the work load of the counterexample interpretation.”
and an exclusion history generation unit that generates exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency for each of a plurality of elements (Col. 8 lines 3-10 “Further, in a case where the model to be checked has not led to the unsafe event in the model re-checking, the processing unit 100 according to the first embodiment returns the selected one element to the model to be checked MOD, and performs model re-checking on a model to be checked which is obtained by excluding an element, which is different from the one element, from the model to be checked MOD.”
wherein the checking unit further performs model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element (Col. 8 lines 3-10 “Further, in a case where the model to be checked has not led to the unsafe event in the model re-checking, the processing unit 100 according to the first embodiment returns the selected one element to the model to be checked MOD, and performs model re-checking on a model to be checked which is obtained by excluding an element, which is different from the one element, from the model to be checked MOD.”
in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, the exclusion history generation unit increases the exclusion frequency of the selected element and updates the exclusion history information (Col. 8 lines 11-18 “Further, in a case where the model to be checked has not led to the unsafe event in the model re-checking, the processing unit 100 according to the first embodiment does not return the selected one element to the model to be checked MOD, but performs model re-checking on a model to be checked which is obtained by excluding an element, which is different from the one element, from the model to be checked MOD.”
and the selection unit selects an element of which the exclusion frequency is high based on the exclusion history information (Col. 8 lines 11-18 “Further, in a case where the model to be checked has not led to the unsafe event in the model re-checking, the processing unit 100 according to the first embodiment does not return the selected one element to the model to be checked MOD, but performs model re-checking on a model to be checked which is obtained by excluding an element, which is different from the one element, from the model to be checked MOD.”
With respect to claim 2, U.S. Patent 11,347,918 teaches wherein the exclusion history generation unit generates, based on the exclusion frequency for each element included in one design drawing, exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency in design drawing units (Col. 7 lines 14-33 “In a case where the same unsafe event did not occur (step S06; NO), the element selected in step S03 is excluded, and as a result, the unsafe event no longer occurs. Thus, it can be said that the excluded element is a critical element that contributes to the occurrence of unsafe events. Therefore, in this case, the reconstruction unit 102 returns the element selected in step S03 to the model to be checked MOD (step S07).
(52) On the other hand, in a case where the same unsafe event occurs (step S06; YES), the excluded element is excluded because the unsafe event still occurs even though the element selected in step S03 is excluded. Thus, it can be said that the excluded element is an element that does not contribute to the occurrence of unsafe events (the element is not critical). Since it is desirable that such an element is excluded in the counterexample interpretation, the reconstruction unit 102 moves to the next step without returning the element selected in step S03 to the model to be checked MOD.”
and the selection unit selects all elements included in a design drawing of which the exclusion frequency in the design drawing units is high based on the exclusion history information (Col. 7 lines 34-44 “Next, the selection unit 101 determines whether or not all the elements listed in the trouble list L in step SO2 are selected (step S08). In a case where all the elements are not selected (step S08; NO), the selection unit 101 returns to step S03 and selects one element different from the previous step S03. Then, the reconstruction unit 102 and the processing unit 100 repeat the processing of steps S04 to S07.
(54) In a case where all the elements are selected (step S08; YES), the selection unit 101 outputs the elements listed in the trouble list L that remain in the model to be checked MOD (step S09).”
With respect to claim 3, U.S. Patent 11,347,918 teaches wherein the exclusion history generation unit generates exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency in checking expression units for each of the plurality of elements (Col. 7 lines 14-44 “In a case where the same unsafe event did not occur (step S06; NO), the element selected in step S03 is excluded, and as a result, the unsafe event no longer occurs. Thus, it can be said that the excluded element is a critical element that contributes to the occurrence of unsafe events. Therefore, in this case, the reconstruction unit 102 returns the element selected in step S03 to the model to be checked MOD (step S07).
(52) On the other hand, in a case where the same unsafe event occurs (step S06; YES), the excluded element is excluded because the unsafe event still occurs even though the element selected in step S03 is excluded. Thus, it can be said that the excluded element is an element that does not contribute to the occurrence of unsafe events (the element is not critical). Since it is desirable that such an element is excluded in the counterexample interpretation, the reconstruction unit 102 moves to the next step without returning the element selected in step S03 to the model to be checked MOD.
Next, the selection unit 101 determines whether or not all the elements listed in the trouble list L in step SO2 are selected (step S08). In a case where all the elements are not selected (step S08; NO), the selection unit 101 returns to step S03 and selects one element different from the previous step S03. Then, the reconstruction unit 102 and the processing unit 100 repeat the processing of steps S04 to S07.
(54) In a case where all the elements are selected (step S08; YES), the selection unit 101 outputs the elements listed in the trouble list L that remain in the model to be checked MOD (step S09).”
and the selection unit selects an element of which the exclusion frequency in the checking expression units corresponding to a checking expression used in the next model checking is high based on the exclusion history information. (Col. 7 lines 34-44 “Next, the selection unit 101 determines whether or not all the elements listed in the trouble list L in step SO2 are selected (step S08). In a case where all the elements are not selected (step S08; NO), the selection unit 101 returns to step S03 and selects one element different from the previous step S03. Then, the reconstruction unit 102 and the processing unit 100 repeat the processing of steps S04 to S07.
(54) In a case where all the elements are selected (step S08; YES), the selection unit 101 outputs the elements listed in the trouble list L that remain in the model to be checked MOD (step S09).”
With respect to claim 4, U.S. Patent 11,347,918 teaches wherein in a case where a counterexample is not output as a result of the model re- checking, the selection unit selects one of two groups into which a plurality of previously selected elements is divided. (Col. 7 lines 14-40 “In a case where the same unsafe event did not occur (step S06; NO), the element selected in step S03 is excluded, and as a result, the unsafe event no longer occurs. Thus, it can be said that the excluded element is a critical element that contributes to the occurrence of unsafe events. Therefore, in this case, the reconstruction unit 102 returns the element selected in step S03 to the model to be checked MOD (step S07).
(52) On the other hand, in a case where the same unsafe event occurs (step S06; YES), the excluded element is excluded because the unsafe event still occurs even though the element selected in step S03 is excluded. Thus, it can be said that the excluded element is an element that does not contribute to the occurrence of unsafe events (the element is not critical). Since it is desirable that such an element is excluded in the counterexample interpretation, the reconstruction unit 102 moves to the next step without returning the element selected in step S03 to the model to be checked MOD.
Next, the selection unit 101 determines whether or not all the elements listed in the trouble list L in step SO2 are selected (step S08). In a case where all the elements are not selected (step S08; NO), the selection unit 101 returns to step S03 and selects one element different from the previous step S03. Then, the reconstruction unit 102 and the processing unit 100 repeat the processing of steps S04 to S07.”
With respect to claim 5, U.S. Patent 11,347,918 teaches a threshold value decision unit that decides a threshold value used for determining whether or not to exclude each element from the model to be checked by comparing the threshold value with the exclusion frequency. (Col. 2 lines 52-56 “According to the seventh aspect of the present invention, in a case where the probability is lower than a predetermined determination threshold value, the selection unit omits processing of selecting the one element on the basis of a result of the model checking.”
Claims 6 and 7 recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,”
but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a checking unit”, “a selection unit”, “an exclusion history generation unit”, “a threshold value decision unit”, “a step of performing”, “a step of selecting”, “a step of generating”, “a step of performing”, “a step of increasing” in claims 1-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation of claims 1-7 “a checking unit”, “a selection unit”, “an exclusion history generation unit”, “a threshold value decision unit”, “a step of performing”, “a step of selecting”, “a step of generating”, “a step of performing”, “a step of increasing” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because he claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1 and 6-7
Regarding step 1, claims 1 and 6-7 are directed towards a device, a method and medium which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 6 recites “a step of selecting one or more of a plurality of elements included in a counterexample output as a result of the model checking”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “a step of generating exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency for each of a plurality of elements”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “and a step of increasing, in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, the exclusion frequency of the selected element and updating the exclusion history information”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “wherein in the selecting step, an element of which the exclusion frequency is high is selected based on the exclusion history information.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “a step of performing model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the model checking is occurring, what the elements are or how they’re associated with the model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “a step of performing model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the re-checking is occurring or how the selected element is excluded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim language also does not include a computer or components of a computer, but if written with, for example, a processor, the claim language would still not be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. For example, adding the phrase “by a processor” to the claim language, would encompass the processor be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “a step of performing model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the model checking is occurring, what the elements are or how they’re associated with the model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “a step of performing model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the re-checking is occurring or how the selected element is excluded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim does not include the additional element of a processor. However, if written with a processor as shown above, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “that selects one or more of a plurality of elements included in a counterexample output as a result of the model checking”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “that generates exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency for each of a plurality of elements”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, the exclusion history generation unit increases the exclusion frequency of the selected element and updates the exclusion history information”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “selects an element of which the exclusion frequency is high based on the exclusion history information”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “a checking unit that performs model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the elements are or how they’re associated with the model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “wherein the checking unit further performs model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the selected element is excluded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a selection unit and an exclusion history generation unit. The selection unit and exclusion history generation unit are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “a checking unit that performs model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the elements are or how they’re associated with the model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “wherein the checking unit further performs model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the selected element is excluded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the selection unit and exclusion history generation unit amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 7
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 7 recites “a step of selecting one or more of a plurality of elements included in a counterexample output as a result of the model checking”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “a step of generating exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency for each of a plurality of elements”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “and a step of increasing, in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, the exclusion frequency of the selected element and updating the exclusion history information”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “wherein in the selecting step, an element of which the exclusion frequency is high is selected based on the exclusion history information.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “a step of performing model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the model checking is occurring, what the elements are or how they’re associated with the model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “a step of performing model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the re-checking is occurring or how the selected element is excluded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a computer and a medium. The computer and a medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “a step of performing model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the model checking is occurring, what the elements are or how they’re associated with the model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “a step of performing model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the re-checking is occurring or how the selected element is excluded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the computer and a medium amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the exclusion history generation unit generates, based on the exclusion frequency for each element included in one design drawing, exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency in design drawing units”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the element included in the one design drawing is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional element of an exclusion history generation unit. The exclusion history generation unit is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 recites “and the selection unit selects all elements included in a design drawing of which the exclusion frequency in the design drawing units is high based on the exclusion history information.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how it’s determined that the exclusion frequency of the elements is high. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a selection unit. The selection unit is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the exclusion history generation unit generates exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency in checking expression units for each of the plurality of elements” This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the exclusion history information is being generated. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional element of an exclusion history generation unit. The exclusion history generation unit is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 recites “and the selection unit selects an element of which the exclusion frequency in the checking expression units corresponding to a checking expression used in the next model checking is high based on the exclusion history information.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the exclusion history information was determined to have the exclusion frequency of an element being high. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a selection unit. The selection unit is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein in a case where a counterexample is not output as a result of the model re- checking, the selection unit selects one of two groups into which a plurality of previously selected elements is divided.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, this limitation dividing previously selected elements, see paragraphs [0055] – [0056] of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a selection unit. The selection unit is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites “a threshold value decision unit that decides a threshold value used for determining whether or not to exclude each element from the model to be checked by comparing the threshold value with the exclusion frequency.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a threshold value decision unit. The threshold value decision unit is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao et
al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0387656) (from IDS dated 1/11/23) in view of Bjesse (TW 201022978).
With respect to claim 1, Takao et al. discloses “A verification processing device” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0044] “The verification-processing device in the following embodiments inspects an event when an unsafe event occurs, using a predetermined inspection expression.”)];
“a checking unit that performs model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” as [Takao et al. (paragraph[0024] “According to an eighth aspect of the present invention, a logic-generating device includes a logic generation unit that is configured to generate a circuit logic model represented by an evaluation expression based on data on a list showing a mutual connection relationship between the element and the connection line, the evaluation expression being represented by a logical expression taking, as variables, as a relay, an element, and a connection line that form a relay logic circuit of a verification target, the evaluation expression including at least the logical expression for a case where a failure event occurs in the relay logic circuit.”, Takao et al. paragraph [0132] “The logic generation unit 27 generates the circuit logic model represented by the evaluation expression, based on the data of the list showing the connection relationship between the elements and the connection lines. As described above, the above evaluation expression is represented by a logical expression taking as variables, a relay, an element, and a connection line that form a relay logic circuit to be verified, and includes at least the logical expression for a case where a failure event occurs in the relay logic circuit.”, The examiner considers the evaluation expression to be the model checking, since the evaluation expression determines if there’s a failure element)];
“a selection unit that selects one or more of a plurality of elements included in a counterexample output as a result of the model checking” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0048] “The evaluation expression DB 11 includes data regarding the evaluation expression for the relay logic circuit to be evaluated. The evaluation expression is formed as a logical expression in which the relay, the element, and the connection line forming the relay logic circuit to be verified are variables. This evaluation expression includes at least a logical expression when a failure event occurs in the relay logic circuit.”, Takao et al. paragraph [0066] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects one or a plurality of types from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1.”, The examiner notes that by there being a failure event, demonstrates that there’s a counterexample, since a counterexample demonstrates why a systems property fails to hold.)];
“and an exclusion history generation unit that generates exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency for each of a plurality of elements” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0066] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects one or a plurality of types from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1. The analysis data setting unit 21 stores the verification condition corresponding to the selection result in the evaluation condition DB 12.”)];
“wherein the checking unit further performs model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0063] “As a method of comprehensively defining the items, there is a method of automatically generating variables such that the values of the variables in the evaluation expression used for the analysis process become a combination of variables different from one another for each inspection item. By comprehensively defining inspection items by the above method, it is possible to verify that no unsafe event occurs in the output of the relay in the relay logic circuit for any event that occurs regardless of the state.”, The examiner considers verifying that no unsafe event occurs to be excluding the selected element in model re-checking, since the model checking that included the selected element gave results of a failure event)];
“and the selection unit selects an element of which the exclusion frequency is high based on the exclusion history information.” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0135] “For example, the configuration information includes an element extracted from the relay logic circuit and data indicating the connection relationship of the element in the element list. In this case, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires data regarding the element list and adds the acquired element list to the element information DB 15.”, Takao et al. paragraph [0136] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects a specific type from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes, and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1.”)];
While the Takao et al. reference teaches having a verification device to verify the occurrence of a failure using model checking, Takao et al. does not explicitly disclose “in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, the exclusion history generation unit increases the exclusion frequency of the selected element and updates the exclusion history information”
Bjesse discloses “in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, the exclusion history generation unit increases the exclusion frequency of the selected element and updates the exclusion history information” as [Bjesse (Pg. 3, 1st paragraph, “For example, an abstraction pair can be identified by performing a model check process on top of an updated network connection table starting with an initial updated network connection table that does not have an abstract pair of implementations. If the model check fails in a particular state, the trace that caused the failure is retrieved, and then a simulation is performed using the raw input network connection table based on the set of input and initial state variable assignments determined by the particular state trace. If the simulation of the original network connection table does not indicate a failure, the updated network connection table is processed to find the erroneous read that caused the failure. Select the abstraction pair to resolve the error read, and add the selected abstraction pair to the updated network connection table, the iteration returns to the model checking step' and repeat the processing until the updated network connection table passes the model check 'Until the real defect is detected in the simulation step, or until the updated network connection table becomes larger than the target size.”)];
Takao et al. and Bjesse are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the occurrence of a failure event.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Takao et al. of having a verification device to verify the occurrence of a failure using model checking by incorporating in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, the exclusion history generation unit increases the exclusion frequency of the selected element and updates the exclusion history information as taught by Bjesse for the purpose of verifying and analyzing complex designs including.
Takao et al. in view of Bjesse teaches in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, the exclusion history generation unit increases the exclusion frequency of the selected element and updates the exclusion history information.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Bjesse teaches that by verifying and analyzing complex designs including memory using a model check process, the ability to check designs with wide data paths and large memory can be accomplished. This allows the ability to analyze integrated circuit designs (Bjesse Pg. 1, Description, 1st paragraph, “The present invention relates to integrated circuit design, etc.”).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Takao et al. and Bjesse discloses the device of claim 1 above, and Takao et al. further discloses “wherein the exclusion history generation unit generates, based on the exclusion frequency for each element included in one design drawing, exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency in design drawing units” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0135] “In response to this, the analysis data setting unit 21 registers the data, which is generated by the user, indicating the connection relationship of each element in the element information DB 15. For example, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires the configuration information of the relay logic circuit for the verification process from the external device or the like by a user operation or by communication. For example, the configuration information includes an element extracted from the relay logic circuit and data indicating the connection relationship of the element in the element list. In this case, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires data regarding the element list and adds the acquired element list to the element information DB 15.”)];
“and the selection unit selects all elements included in a design drawing of which the exclusion frequency in the design drawing units is high based on the exclusion history information.” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0136] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects a specific type from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes, and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1.”)];
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Takao et al. and Bjesse discloses the device of claim 1 above, and Takao et al. further discloses “wherein the exclusion history generation unit generates exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency in checking expression units for each of the plurality of elements” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0135] “In response to this, the analysis data setting unit 21 registers the data, which is generated by the user, indicating the connection relationship of each element in the element information DB 15. For example, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires the configuration information of the relay logic circuit for the verification process from the external device or the like by a user operation or by communication. For example, the configuration information includes an element extracted from the relay logic circuit and data indicating the connection relationship of the element in the element list. In this case, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires data regarding the element list and adds the acquired element list to the element information DB 15.”)];
“and the selection unit selects an element of which the exclusion frequency in the checking expression units corresponding to a checking expression used in the next model checking is high based on the exclusion history information.” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0135] “In response to this, the analysis data setting unit 21 registers the data, which is generated by the user, indicating the connection relationship of each element in the element information DB 15. For example, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires the configuration information of the relay logic circuit for the verification process from the external device or the like by a user operation or by communication. For example, the configuration information includes an element extracted from the relay logic circuit and data indicating the connection relationship of the element in the element list. In this case, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires data regarding the element list and adds the acquired element list to the element information DB 15.”, Takao et al. paragraph [0136] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects a specific type from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes, and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1.”)];
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Takao et al. and Bjesse discloses the device of claim 1 above, and Takao et al. further discloses “wherein in a case where a counterexample is not output as a result of the model re- checking” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0063] “As a method of comprehensively defining the items, there is a method of automatically generating variables such that the values of the variables in the evaluation expression used for the analysis process become a combination of variables different from one another for each inspection item. By comprehensively defining inspection items by the above method, it is possible to verify that no unsafe event occurs in the output of the relay in the relay logic circuit for any event that occurs regardless of the state.”)];
“the selection unit selects one of two groups into which a plurality of previously selected elements is divided.” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0066] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects one or a plurality of types from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1.”)];
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Takao et al. and Bjesse discloses the device of claim 1 above, and Takao et al. further discloses “a threshold value decision unit that decides a threshold value used for determining whether or not to exclude each element from the model to be checked by comparing the threshold value with the exclusion frequency.” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0066] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects one or a plurality of types from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1.”)];
With respect to claim 6, Takao et al. discloses “A verification processing method” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0026] “According to a ninth aspect of the present invention, a verification-processing method includes a step of acquiring a circuit logic model represented by an evaluation expression in which a relay logic circuit of a verification target is represented by a logical expression taking as variables, a relay, an element, and a connection line that form the relay logic circuit, etc.”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 7, Takao et al. discloses “A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program causing a computer to execute” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0259] “Note that FIG. 1 and FIG. 6 described above are schematic block diagrams showing the configuration of a computer according to at least one embodiment. The computer includes a processor, a main memory, a storage, and an interface, which are not shown.”, Takao et al. paragraph [0261] “Examples of the storage include a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid state drive (SSD), a magnetic disk, a magneto-optical disk, a compact disc read only memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disc read only memory (DVD-ROM), and a semiconductor memory. The storage may be an internal medium directly connected to the bus of the computer, or may be an external medium connected to the computer through the interface or a communication line.”, Figs. 1 and 6)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of online reference Counterexamples in Model Checking -A Survey, written by Debbi is surveying algorithms for counterexample generation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188